|
Government
needs to give clear, truthful dietary advice
September 23, 04
Suzanne Havala Hobbs
On
the battleground of nutrition policy, where science, money
and politics contend, score one for consumers, two for industry.
That
is, of course, if the government lets stand proposed changes
to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, our nation’s
blueprint for food and nutrition policy. As I mentioned in
last week’s column, a public comment period is under
way, and a final version of the guidelines will be published
early next year.
The draft report can be commended for urging limits on trans
fats, pushing fruits and vegetables, and emphasizing whole
grains rather than refined ones and nonfat or lowfat milk
in lieu of whole milk.
In other areas, though, the report fails to provide clear
guidance concerning which foods promote good health.
In a major departure from previous versions of the guidelines,
the report buries into fine print advice about limiting added
sugar and instead issues this muddied recommendation: “Choose
carbohydrates wisely for good health.”
This gift to the food industry is particularly bold given
the growing body of scientific evidence – not to mention
common sense – that underscores the role soft drinks,
cakes, cookies, pies and other sweets play in contributing
to obesity and displacing nutritious foods from the diet.
But that’s where politics come in. The New York Times,
in a Sept. 1 editorial, summed it up well:
“This curious avoidance of the growing evidence about
the dangers of added sugar would be inexplicable but for the
fact that seven members of the panel – which was chosen
by the Health and Human Services Department – have major
financial and organizational connections to the food, drug
and dietary supplement industries. It strains the imagination
to believe that the sugar industry did not have undue influence
this time around.”
The report floats the concept of “discretionary”
calories, as in “Hey, all foods, including junk, can
fit within the calories you have remaining once you’ve
met all your nutritional needs.” That rarely happens
for most of us. With obesity rates as high as they are, most
people have no discretionary calories.
The sugar lobby isn’t the only industry to score a victory.
The dairy industry has worked equally hard to gain ground
amidst sagging milk sales.
The proposed guidelines raise the recommended number of dairy
product servings by 50 percent – to three servings per
day – for most people. That benefits the dairy industry
since federal nutrition programs, including school lunches,
would be required to comply with the guidelines.
In recent years, the dairy industry has funneled funding into
nutrition research, conferences organized around the theme
of a national “calcium crisis,” and pushed a national
“3-A-Day” ad campaign.
The trouble is, dairy products – particularly cheese
– are the leading source of artery-clogging saturated
fat in the American diet. And – let’s face it
– there’s no human requirement for milk from a
cow.
“Huge parts of the world don’t even consume dairy,”
Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department in Harvard’s
School of Public Health, told The Wall Street Journal. He
called the report “egregious” and noted that it
did not take into account several major studies linking dairy
consumption to prostate cancer.
The Journal story reported a guideline committee member’s
comment that the major consideration in increasing recommendations
for dairy was to boost not just calcium but also potassium
intakes. If the guidelines didn’t suggest raising intakes
of dairy products, she said, the committee would have had
to recommend that we all eat more sweet potatoes, spinach,
bananas and other potassium-rich foods. I’d like to
know why the guidelines can’t say that.
Somehow, sometime, our government agencies have to play it
straight with the public and be truthful and clear about what
is and is not good for health. The proposed Dietary Guidelines
take some steps toward that goal. But the government should
do better.
|
